This
council was called in May, 381, by Emperor Theodosius, to provide for a Catholic succession in the patriarchal See of
Constantinople, to confirm the Nicene Faith, to reconcile the semi-Arians with the Church, and to put an end to the Macedonian heresy.

Its
first measure was to confirm St. Gregory Nazianzen as Bishop of Constantinople. The Acts of the council
have almost entirely disappeared, and its proceedings are known chiefly through
the accounts of the ecclesiastical historians Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. There is good reason to
believe that it drew up a formal treatise (tomos) on the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, also
against Apollinarianism; this important
document has been lost, with the exception of the first canon of the council
and its famous creed
(Nicæano-Constantinopolitanum). The latter is traditionally held to be an
enlargement of the Nicene Creed, with emphasis on the
Divinity of the Holy Spirit. It seems, however, to be of earlier origin, and
was probably composed (369-73) by St. Cyril of Jerusalem as an expression of
the faith of that Church (Bois),
though its adoption by this council gave it special authority, both as a baptismal creed and as a theological formula. Recently Harnack
(Realencyklopadie fur prot. Theol. und Kirche, 3rd ed., XI, 12-28) has
maintained, on apparently inconclusive grounds, that not till after the Council of Chalcedon (451) was this creed
(a Jerusalem formula with Nicene
additions) attributed to the Fathers of this council. At Chalcedon, indeed, it
was twice recited and appears twice in the Acts of that council; it was also
read and accepted at the Sixth General Council, held at
Constantinople in 680. The very ancient Latin version of its text (Mansi, Coll. Conc., III, 567) is by Dionysius Exiguus.

The
Greeks recognize seven canons, but the oldest Latin versions have only four;
the other three are very probably (Hefele) later additions.

The
first canon is an important dogmatic condemnation of all shades of Arianism, also of
Macedonianism and Apollinarianism.

The
second canon renews the Nicene legislation imposing upon the bishops the observance of
diocesan and patriarchal
limits.

The
famous third canon declares that because Constantinople is New Rome the bishop of that city
should have a pre-eminence of honour after the Bishop of Old Rome. Baronius wrongly
maintained the non-authenticity of this canon, while some medieval Greeks maintained
(an equally erroneous thesis) that it
declared the bishop of the royal city
in all things the equal of the pope. The purely humanreason of Rome's ancient
authority, suggested by this canon, was never admitted by the Apostolic See, which always
based its claim to supremacy on the succession of St. Peter. Nor did Rome easily
acknowledge this unjustifiable reordering of rank among the ancient patriarchates of the East. It
was rejected by the papal legates at Chalcedon. St. Leo the Great (Ep. cvi in P.L.,
LIV, 1003, 1005) declared that this canon has never been submitted to the Apostolic See and that it was a
violation of the Nicene order. At the Eighth General Council in 869 the Roman legates (Mansi, XVI, 174)
acknowledged Constantinople as second in patriarchal rank. In 1215, at the
Fourth Lateran
Council
(op. cit., XXII, 991), this was formally admitted for the new Latin
patriarch, and in 1439, at the Council of Florence, for the Greek
patriarch (Hefele-Leclercq, Hist. des
Conciles, II, 25-27). The Roman correctores
of Gratian (1582), at dist. xxii, c. 3, insert the words: "canon hic
ex iis est quos apostolica Romana sedes a principio et longo post tempore
non recipit."

At the close of this
council Emperor Theodosius issued an imperial decree (30 July) declaring that the churches should
be restored to those bishops who confessed the
equal Divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and who held
communion with Nectarius of Constantinople and other important Oriental prelates whom he named. The ecumenical character of
this council seems to date, among the Greeks, from the Council of Chalcedon (451). According to
Photius (Mansi, III, 596) Pope
Damasus approved it, but if any part of the council were approved by this pope it could have been only the aforesaid creed.
In the latter half of the fifth century the successors of Leo the Great are silent as to this council. Its
mention in the so-called "Decretum Gelasii", towards the end of the
fifth century, is not original but a later insertion in that text (Hefele). Gregory the Great, following the example
of Vigilius and Pelagius II, recognized it as one
of the four general councils, but only in its
dogmatic utterances (P.G., LXXVII, 468, 893).

Lutheran

Presbyterian

About Me

Retired. Reformed and Presbyterian by background, but dedicated to the Anglican Prayerbook with degrees from Presbyterian and Episcopal seminaries. Informed by both traditions. Not giving up the 1662 BCP for the Presbyterians and not giving up the Westminster Standards for the Anglicans.